Stamp Act | Agreements to Sell with Possession Clauses Are Conveyances and Must Be Stamped Separately: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Electronic Road Safety Monitoring Under Motor Vehicles Act    |     False Claims Shake Court's Trust in Legal Proceedings: Supreme Court Dismisses Petition for Premature Release After False Statements on Imprisonment Duration    |     Executive Instructions Cannot Supplant Statutory Notifications: Bombay High Court Holds on Environmental Clearances    |     Illegal Mining Is Not a Scheduled Offence Under PMLA: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Arrest of MLA Surender Panwar    |     Customers Liable Under Section 370(A) IPC if They Knew Victims Were Trafficked: Telangana High Court    |     Literal Interpretation of Taxing Statute Cannot Frustrate The Legislative Intent To Promote Infrastructure Development: Calcutta High Court    |     Medical Evidence Reveals One Child Died 13 Hours After Accused’s Rescue: Kerala High Court Acquits Mother Convicted of Killing Her Children    |     Non-compliance with interim maintenance order cannot bar divorce proceedings: Orissa High Court    |     DNA Evidence Cannot Be the Sole Basis for Conviction Without Proper Chain of Custody: Bombay High Court Quashes Conviction in POCSO and Rape Case    |     Force Majeure Cannot Be Invoked Without Timely Notice: Madras High Court    |     Non-payment of Compensation for Over Four Decades Shocks Judicial Conscience: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Compensation Recalculation for 42-Year    |     Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Cement Workers, Grants Full Back Wages to Wrongfully Retired Workmen    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Tamil Nadu Ex-Minister V. Senthil Balaji in Corruption and Money Laundering Case    |     Courts Can Award Maintenance More Than Claimed Based on Income: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Maintenance    |     Mere Possession of Child Pornography with Intent Can Trigger POCSO Offences, Even Without Transmission: Supreme Court    |     Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Taxation Law | Issuing Notices to a Dead Person is a Fundamental Jurisdictional Error: Delhi HC Sets Aside Reassessment Proceedings    |     Common Intention Can Be Inferred from the Conduct of the Accused Moments Before the Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Quashes All Pending Cases in Matrimonial Dispute    |    

Appointment Based on Unadvertised Vacancies of Judicial Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Appointments Despite Procedural Anomalies

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, has upheld the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) despite certain procedural irregularities in their selection process. The decision, dated November 20, 2023, navigates the complexities of judicial appointments and highlights the importance of equity and public interest in the administration of justice.

The case revolved around the validity of additional appointments made post the original selection process for Civil Judges in Himachal Pradesh. The appointments in question were based on unadvertised vacancies that arose after the initial selection process was completed. The judgment meticulously dissected the legal implications of such appointments and the role of the High Court and other authorities in the process.

In a significant observation, the Court noted, “The purpose of a ‘waiting list’ is only to fill the shortfall of ‘clear and anticipated vacancies’.” This statement sheds light on the Court’s rationale in addressing the complexities of service jurisprudence concerning advertised versus unadvertised vacancies.

The Court acknowledged the procedural anomalies but emphasized the public interest and the experience gained by the appointees in their tenure as judicial officers. “Unseating the present appellants from their posts would not be in public interest,” the Court observed, underlining the critical balance between legal technicalities and the overarching need for experienced judicial officers.

The judgment also addressed the shared responsibility among the State Commission, Government, and High Court for the procedural irregularities, highlighting the need for greater coordination and adherence to established procedures in judicial appointments.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future judicial appointments and the interpretation of service rules vis-à-vis constitutional mandates. By choosing to uphold these appointments, the Court has prioritized the continuity and stability of the judicial system over procedural lapses, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: November 20, 2023

VIVEK KAISTH & ANR.  VS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Similar News